If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions. 
Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.
CDC misled District residents about lead levels in water; FBI investigated leaks to Robert Novak in '80s; WikiLeaks' sources remain a mystery
CDC misled District residents about lead levels in water, House probe finds The Washington Post
The nation's premier public health agency knowingly used flawed data to claim that high lead levels in the District's drinking water did not pose a health risk to the public, a congressional investigation has found. The agency has not publicized more thorough internal research showing that the problem harmed children across the city and continues to endanger thousands of D.C. residents.
3 FBI probes looked at '80s leaks to columnist Robert Novak The Washington Post
The FBI launched three separate investigations into the leaking of classified material made public by newspaper columnist Robert Novak in the 1980s, newly obtained records show. His "Inside Report" column was widely syndicated and often used by Washington insiders as a way to surface information that could embarrass their political opponents.
WikiLeaks works to expose government secrets, but Web site's sources are a mystery The Washington Post
WikiLeaks' Web site doesn't list a street address or phone number, or the names of key officers. Officially, it has no employees, headquarters or even a post office box. Yet, about 30 times a day, someone submits a sensitive document to this cyber-whistleblower to be posted online for all to see. Politicians' private e-mails, secret CIA reports, corporate memos, surveillance video -- all have been fair game.
By Jennifer Jenkins |
May 20, 2010; 4:57 PM ET
The Daily Read
Previous: Border security proposals in Congress could be costly; Bush-era memo could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law |
Next: An update on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
Posted by: ChristyVA | May 21, 2010 11:10 AM
ChristyVA:
Best seems to be that CDC did not want to take anything away from their efforts to remove lead paint.
Posted by: DCwavesDad | May 21, 2010 3:09 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
I would like to know why. Why did the CDC cover up the lead problem? Why did others who knew about it pretend there was no problem?